How policies perception and reality are often ambiguous

Part 2 of a 3 part story on the Department of Defense and its coming to the realization of its own shortcomings and the realities it faces; and the motivation for those that will not go down swinging.

As we continue our buildup to combat the dangers of the War on Terror, somewhere along the way; somebody failed to tell our elected leaders that the defense budget was becoming super sized. Wasn’t the Homeland security created to organize our communications and protect us here at home from terrorism? That budget this year was 57 Billion.

But the beat goes on and the defense budget keeps increasing. It was President Bush who was once labeled a war monger by many of us (and rightfully so) yet President Obama has not only kept up the same strategies, he has expanded upon them and increased spending along the way. So what exactly is the defense budget and how does it relate to other nations spending?

First, here is a little perspective:

In 2001 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 390 Billion

In 2011 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 540 Billion

That is a 38% increase in 10 years. Again, this isn’t including the Nuclear Weapons programs or the wars we are fighting throughout the Middle East. If it seems like a lot; it’s because it is. Now the cuts that will take place starting in 2013 are not actually from existing defense… it’s from proposed increases. According to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky:

"This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%."

So, in reality this is just slightly blunting the momentum of the leviathan that is the DOD. The Department and its cozy relationship with Congress and Industry (queue the black and white Eisenhower farewell address) remain warm and fuzzy and most importantly to those three love birds: intact and thriving.

And that I believe is the point. It has to be. How can anyone, given the information and the trends not see defense as a bloated bureaucracy, one that should be first in-line on the chopping block? Our ever expanding Department of Defense is not in an arms race yet their budget and approach clearly says otherwise. Shouldn’t we be shaping our military to fight the battles of the 21^st Century; instead of preparing for an enemy of the twentieth that doesn’t exist?

In 2010 we spent almost six times the amount on defense than China does and eleven times more than Russia; yet many if not a majority of our elected leaders refuse to accept the notion of making cuts in defense. To me, it’s pretty clear… if we take the 18 nations that spend the most on defense; the US outspends all of her counterparts… ALL 17 of them COMBINED. So cuts are not only logical in our economic situation but they are a necessity; even if we were not drowning in debt.



Isn't it a bit silly for us to be even worried about a war with another super power in the first place? The idea of us engaging in war with a China or Russia is almost laughable because of how implausible it is. For one, it would be certain nuclear mutual devastation and then you have the reality of China and the US being so economically intertwined; it would be disruptive to both countries at so many levels.

In fact so much so that even the funding of a sustainable war would be impossible. Most people in this country see China as an economic threat and rightfully so, but it’s a threat only because we depend on them so much; as they do us. Our 1/4+ Trillion dollar trade deficit with a nation has a tendency to create a little codependency.

We are building a military prepared to wage a war not seen since the days of Hitler and we are outspending every nation at astronomical rates. Who is the war on terror about anyway? Stateless organizations whom hide in caves and target random civilians around the globe. Isnt that a threat to all nations? Why do they not allocate the resources that we do?

It just doesn’t seem to make sense. To fight such an enemy that is no more dangerous or powerful than a drug cartel using conventional warfare with cold war spending and tactics. How we cannot connect these dots is astounding if it wasn’t so downright intellectually offensive.

Romney has a bazooka in his front pocket... but an empty wallet in has back pocket

Its been a rather hot item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better) of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd, considering Romney has said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.

This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my hands on Washington". I had to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let alone not balance the budget. 

Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a budget?

Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to appeal to everyone. That why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.

With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense, he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense, because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would "add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".

The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.

 These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.

So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:

 “We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our children,” 

 In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.

National defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size, leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote when he says:

 "ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us"

There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without even a deceleration of war from Congress?

"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free" in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.

Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within our means. Here is a recent quote from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US foreign policy outlook:

"the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others" 

I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line with reality than a hopeful for the Presidency of the United States. To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.

With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:

  

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"

Thou not lead us to temptation

When I was working on my last entry concerning FEMA and Ron Paul, I started to get into a bit of a tirade concerning the debt. This, in this writers opinion, is the United States greatest threat, not some foreign enemy. With most people showing no interest or regard for it, its up to those of us who do hold these truths to be evident, to keep putting that word out there... and that word is debt (specifically insurmountable debt) is slavery and nothing more then a transfer of wealth; from the many to the few. 

In this article I want to tackle two situations that I see problematic and the key cogs to insurmountable debt. First, there is the federal government and our elected "leaders" role in this failure to be reasponsible. Secondly, is the Federal Reserve and its banks, that have been culpable in allowing (through the manipulation of interest rates) this economy to take a path that will see it fall off a cliff. What the recoil will be from QE 2,3,4,5,6,7 bailouts and stimulus remains to be seen, but there can be only one thing we know for sure. 

 (Sodahead.com)

That is, we are accumulating debt. And vast amounts of it. The implication of compound interest makes these actions basically treasonous by our elected leaders and criminal by the FED. How can Congress and the executive branch both complicity push the cost of running the government so far out of the realm of practicality? How is it legal for the FED to lend huge sums at what amounts to no interest to those banks that were all considered "too big to fail" who then take that liquidity and invest in T-Bills that will actually yield a 2-3% interest? These practices destroy existing savings and the incentive to save; thus creating only one desired effect - consumption. 

Because, without people borrowing and spending the whole thing blows up. Money = debt, debt = money.  The biggest problem is that the American population are over saturated in debt thus why the sub-prime in housing was needed. Like its population, the US government, is over saturated as well. They, unlike you and I, have no limits and that defies logic. Lets look at the executive's role.

The Interest payment is the only debt payment required by the Constitution that must be accounted for in the budget each year to be paid.

With that said, every President hopeful on the Republican side and President Obama have all released a budget or a proposed budget.

Not one of them have a plan to balance the budget next year, neither will any one of them do so in four years either (with the exception of Ron Paul). We will without a doubt have continuous mounting deficits that will probably be in the 1-2 Trillion mark annually regardless of who is in office (with the exception of Ron Paul). Starting to notice a trend here?

We have seen Obama’s appetite for destruction already regarding deficit spending; so let’s take a peek at the eventual Republican nominee’s (Mitt Romney) insanity.

Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending by putting 100k more troops on the ground and rebuild parts of the Navy and Air Force. He would not have left Iraq, appears to have an itch to scratch in Iran and will not leave Afghanistan until its won (the forever war) or at least until his generals say to leave??? His budget has the wealthiest Americans (who pay the most income taxes) getting a significant tax cut on top of the existing tax cuts that are already in place.

Romney has no plans to offset the lost revenue that will surly happen when these cuts take place, nor does he have any plans to make any significant cuts in existing outlays to recoup the ramped up defense spending. This defines logic. Mitt Romney's plans are contrary to anything sane in regards to the federal government living within its means. He’s fiscal policy’s will be train-wreck like.

That however, is not how Romney sees it. He thinks if he cuts taxes the gains in receipts will pay for this increase in spending. The problem with that is that the FED doesn’t think the economy is going to grow by all that much… and they control the money supply. This leads us into the second part of the equation: the insurmountable tag team.

 The FED’s long term forecast is a relatively weak one going forward with long term GDP growth outlook being in the 2.3 to 2.6 percent ranges. The FED has also said it will not look to raise interest rates until, at the earliest, 2014. Here you have the economy just barley keeping its head above water for the foreseeable future, the FED continuing its non-stop intravenous liquidity therapy into bank’s reserves creating a soon to be inflation tsunami all the while our elected representatives continue to show no regard for the situation.

I want to take a look at two charts that really speak volumes for what is going on and what we will being seeing soon enough in our own backyards. Lets start at 2006, when the FED stopped tracking M3. As you can see below, when Shadowstats picked up the tab of tracking M3, the growth in money supply was steadily rising until early 2008. As the recession came, the Fed lowered interest rates to avoid the fire of deflation but banks weren’t loaning, so the money supply dropped with it.  

(shadowstats.com)

A curious situation started occurring by the middle of 2010. M3 started to rise and its rising still as of now. Meanwhile, Interest rates from 2009 on have stayed basically at zero and as we’ve already heard from the FED, they will remain that way for years. This does not bode well for the dollar or anything equity wise going forward in my opinion. If the economy continues its "recovery” like so many in the media says it is, the eventual outcome will be a pretty substantial increase in inflation. This would, by default, put relatively the majority of commodities into buy, buy and buy more mode. Most specifically gold and silver.

Equally alarming will be the federal governments penchant for debt as we have also seen, they will not live within our means, thus piling more debt on to the insurmountable existing amount. What happens when the FED has to raise interest rates? If we are seeing 450 Billion interest payments already (Intragovernmental and Public) imagine what will happen to those when interest rates go up? They could look something like this:

Just for a little perspective. In 1988, the national Debt was 2.6 Trillion. The interest payment on that in the budget was 214 Billion. The interest payment in 2011 was 450 Billion, roughly double. The principal, as we know, was 14+ Trillion.

The US government will not cut spending and we will continue to finance the welfare/warfare system. What happens in 10 years from now will be interesting thou. Can the FED really raise rates, without completely tanking the economy? And if they did, what would happen to the interest payment on the debt outstanding (besides sky rocketing into the trillion dollar mark). If the FED does not raise rates out of the fear of deflation, isn’t massive inflation the only alternative?

George Carlin said it best:

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

Get 'ya Popcorn ready!

Chuck Spinney had it right.

Yesterday the Congressional/Senatorial Military Industrial Complex announced the plans to add ten more ships to the Navy's fleet over the next four years to help keep fighting the good fight on behalf of the "global force for good ". The DOD will commission someone to build these ships and is currently "vetting" the potential shipbuilders. The odds on favorite to "win the bid" is Bath Iron Works out of Maine, a subsidiary of General Dynamics. But I thought it was Mittens Romney that was going to be the new savior for the Navy and the Military Industrial Congressional Complex?

General Dynamics, is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. This is the same General Dynamics that was in the news about a month ago for an "accounting glitch" involving 900 million dollars worth of Stryker replacement parts. This doesnt include the no-bid $1.5 billion Stryker maintenance contract the Army has with General Dynamics that has the Army over-spending by some 300+ million dollars.

But, hey, welcome to the Iron Triangle.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/31/187297/dod-inspector-general-finds-900.html#.UYgBZ8prjfa#storylink=cpy

This 2:27 minute local Bath, Maine news report, back from February of this year, gives a great example of how the Iron Triangle works and it pertains to this topic. Here you have both Senators, a Republican (Susan Collins) and Independent (Angus King) from the state of Maine, "working hand in glove" to get congress to pass a new defense budget. Here you also have union leadership talking about preserving jobs, hoping for a new defense budget. You have the president of BIW, proclaiming: "if nothing changes, it could lead to more job layoffs in the years ahead".

What you have here is organized labor and industry in unison with elected bureaucrats, all with one voice. That voice is clearly aimed at congress. Could it be because of the 5000+ jobs at stake in their districts/town? Or could it be all of them having their pockets lined with the billions at stake with the Department of Defense? General Dyanmics will surly profit from building ten new destroyers. Organized labor gets to keep their scalps. Last but not least, Susan Collins gets to keep her whore-master, General Dynamic, fat and happy, for ther investment into her campaign.

Here is a little something about Susan Collins we should know first:

Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)



Interesting? You would assume someone who is on both Senate committees of Appropriations and Armed Forces, would want some type of transparency into contract/rewards, wouldn't you? Now, here are some of her earmarks...

$20,000,000

High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Repair

$6,000,000

General Dynamics/Saco Defense: MK47 Mod 0 Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher

   $3,200,000    General Dynamics/Saco Defense (Collins) General Dynamics Armaments and Technical Products (Leahy, Snowe): Lightweight Caliber .50 Machine Gun 

Care to guess her top fundraiser over the last six years? 

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
General Dynamics	$89,750	$48,250	$41,500
Raytheon Co	$65,801	$16,801	$49,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield	$52,000	$3,000	$49,000
Marriott International	$51,500	$36,500	$15,000
National Assn of Postmasters	$49,000	$0	$49,000

Maybe its just all a coincidence? Maybe a unicorn will ride in and butter my ass and feed my lollipops in a sea of poppies? One thing that stood out to me in that video was a statement by Angus King:

"Its embarrassing..... ah... that or government has put people in this position because of the inability of people to work together."

Its embarrassing we have put a defense contractor in this position because the Iron Triangle's red tape isn't moving fast enough? Insert hilarious laughter here. I'm not pointing out anything that isn't obvious. Sure, we have corruption. We all know that but this isn't corruption as much as it is everyday business in the US of A. Where common sense and the statesmen has been assassinated and replaced by pimps with out of touch - bloated budgets (read Defense) who are running nothing more than a jobs program for the public while sanctioning nothing short of mercenary work to its soldiers. All the while the "elected" officials play the part of Mary Magdalan... nothing but a whore hiding behind an illusion.

The sky IS FALLING (in graphs)

The NCAA tournament isn’t over yet but we know its coming to an end in exactly 16 days. If I was to tell you it’s not over yet, I would be correct. But does change the fact that is will end? Of course it doesn’t. For many people, because we haven’t seen bread lines or riots in the streets the “sky isn’t falling” yet. Does that change the reality that our economy is on the downside of the bell curve?

When the FED dropped interest rates back in ’07 the idea was that it would incur borrowing from the public & private business; therefore creating new/bigger business and in the process creating jobs or at least not hemorrhaging more than the economy was already in the process of doing. Then the rates kept dropping and dropping and wont go up until the very least 2014 and then what? Go up? The debt will explode in a hyperbolic fashion.

This graph shows we paid MORE in interest on our debt in 2008 (10,024,724,896,912.49) then we did in 2012 (16,066,241,407,385.89). How do you pay LESS interest on six trillion more in principal? There is only one solution; you pay substantial less interest. 

As we know, unemployment has dropped from its high of 10.0% back in ’09 to 7.7% as of last month but at what cost?

GDP has only seen moderate gains during the last five years and in fact, as you can see below, the last quarter actually seen our GDP in decline; despite the fact that private GDP rose in the same period. 

Some people will point to the cuts in defense spending as the main culprit and they would be correct (as defense have seen a 22% drop in spending) but if running nothing short of an empire and that is how we are keeping afloat in the first place, well… 

Mortgage rates are now at their lowest rate in recorded history and this has been a yearly trend these last few years. Only now in March of 2013, are we beginning to see signs of the real estate market coming back to life; despite a plummet in interest rates the last six years that were supposed to (as said in my opening) entice borrowers. Was it worth it?

Was it worth it and at what cost are the two questions I pose to you today. At what cost and is it worth it to live for today at the expense of tomorrow?

The CBO estimates of this nation’s debt keep getting worse, study after study. This is a quite simple process: the interest rates remain low, the debt piles up and the economy barley moves. These projections below are based on current conditions. Remember, zero is the end game; there isn’t much that can be done after that. We are basically at zero interest rates now.  

These examples I gave are just the tip of the iceberg and they are all interconnected. And that iceberg is the general public of this nation being so inundated in debt, so much so that we are getting to the point where offers of basically free money can’t move the needle any longer. These last four years of record low interest rates with barley a crawl until four, five sometimes six years later illustrates this quite luminously.

With wages not keeping up with real inflation (not the phony government statistics) and the globalization of the market, incomes for the average American (an overwhelming majority of) are stagnated; if not in decline. Is there any way that changes? Of course not, this is the new reality.

So to keep up, for most Americans, debt is the only logical solution. Afterall, we know saving via the conventional bank route is futile with rates being under 1%. And as we know debt = money, so when the economy can’t jump start and the FED’s QE programs don’t jump start growth; what else can the FED do? It’s been said by Bernanke that the quick death of deflation will not occur, so that only leaves one alternative; go to zero and close its eyes. Then hold on for limb and life as the decent to a slow death via hyperinflation begins.

The political process here has become a joke. A crooked game ran by self-serving lawyers and career politicians hell bent on seeing who can kick the can down the road the furthest. What was once a calling of statesmen has been replace by a bloodthirsty pack of statists. Republicans blame Democrats for not cutting spending despite having no solution themselves and god-damn you if you want to cut a bloated defense budget! Democrats want to actually ADD to the problem with a monstrosity addition to healthcare. While both “sides” will tell you it’s the other guys fault. Then all the puppets and zombies watching/reading the propaganda will parrot it. You think this is going to change?

At this moment, under these terms we are watching the beginning of the end finally become visible before our very eyes. Americans and their distractions have reached the crescendo. They can no longer afford them. The sky isn’t falling, but our economy is. It’s circling the drain, not as fast as Greece or Spain but its circling nonetheless. So move over American Idol, the freak show isn’t just in your living room its right outside your window. Get ya’ popcorn ready.

The Vest wants to spend to offset spending - but dont call him a liberal

Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate" conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.

Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.

Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was going on as it didn't take long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:

 "Because he's a fake".

The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic).  It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including...


(BOOING)


... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.


What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.


So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say that I've always been very public that, as president of the United States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....

Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.

Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?

The token FEMA "critique starlet" (Dr Paul) takes his final bow.

As we all know by now, unfortunately, we had another unexpected natural disaster last week, this time in a vast multi-state reach, covering much of the Midwest and into parts of Tennessee. This was a deadly storm that took many lives resulting in tear jerking tragedies. Like this heart wrenching story, where a 15^th month old survived the initial trauma from being thrown by a twister into a nearby field. Her entire family perished that day; both parents and two siblings. Sadly, she suffered the same fate just a few days later. Or like this 36-year old mother, who lost both of her legs; in order to protect her children.

The economic impact of this storm will be in the hundreds of millions, if not approaching the billion dollar range when its all said and done. This will require all hands on deck including those at FEMA. With that said, it appears, like every Tornado and Hurricane season, a reporter (or I should say reporters), tap Congressman Dr Ron Paul on the shoulder to ask him his view on the role of government in the event of natural disasters. This is by no accident.

Dr Paul's response was already prerecorded and written on their notepad, all the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the I’s was already done. That is because Dr Paul’s consistency, can and will always allow, a lazy reporter to get a cheap story that will attract buzz, with little effort in terms of leg work. All they need him to do is go on record and their story is complete, a Presidential candidate says something off the beaten path; It’s a win-win for the reporter and his publisher.

Here is the problem with this.

Does Ron Paul believe FEMA should exist? No.
Does he believe in the federal government having a hands on role in natural disasters? No. 
Is FEMA one of the worst bureaucracies in government in terms of lack of accountability and waste? YES. 

Why does Dr Paul feel this way? Its because the constitution doesn’t specifically allow for it to be funded… period. It’s that simple. So why do they cherry pick this story? Because, asking him what role we have in building up an empire then the subsequent invading of other country’s or allowing the FED Reserve to manipulate interest rates, creating bubbles, isn’t a story. Even though the amount of wealth, blood and treasure those “programs” waste are astronomically higher and oh yeah; neither are written in the constitution either (sorry neo-conservatives, what we have isn’t a defense, its clearly offense).

Now, as Ron Paul has said many times, he has a prioritized pecking order in which he would see programs and departments eliminated and/or trimmed down; specifically aiming at the most costly and unconstitutional programs or agencies we have. Do you know where FEMA would rank on that list?

First, you would have to look to see where FEMA's budget comes from and that would be none other then Homeland Security. How fitting, an agency that was created in 2002 overseeing another program that was initially funded and created in 1979. Hardly constitutional and it fits the exact model and voting record of the self described “defender of the constitution”, but I don’t want to defeat my own point before I have even made it, so I will ignore that tidbit.

Last year, FEMA spent about 13 Billion dollars. That is a big number but it terms of our budget? Is it? It is roughly 0.003% of our budget. I would assume clearly, Dr Paul would look elsewhere for the cuts. Why not start with the national debt? Sure, we couldn’t pay off the 15 Trillion, but what about that 250 Billion interest payment on that debt? Imagine the savings if we actually started to balance the budget annually?

Why not defense? The funding for defense, as I have reported numerous times, is outright offensive and hardly a defense department. Its become a slush fund for big business and a "global force for good", their words, not mine. There is not any justification i can understand in fighting rouge terrorists who claim no allegiance to any nation on principal, let alone for the amount we have spent, and to boot - in this economic environment. The Department of Defense’s base budget has increased 81% nominally and 43% inflation adjusted since 9-11. Throw in the Nuclear budget, and that spending itself has increased 21% (inflation adjusted) since 9-11.

Imagine the savings if we knocked those back to the 2001 levels or at least cut them in half? Or, what about the 1.3 Trillion spent in endless wars in the Middle East? Surly we could find savings there. We are talking about saving TRILLIONS, not to mention lives on both sides and actually using our defense to I don’t know, maybe even defending our own borders? Now that is a novel approach, eh? Using the National Guard to actually guard the nation, as opposed to fighting wars across the globe? Who knows, maybe even providing assistance, logistics and overall support for natural disasters would be available??

Quit these wars, bring the troops home. Let them spend their money here. Let’s have a real stimulus package. We are up to our ears in debt. Trillions and trillions of dollars and no end in sight for these wars. Then we could take care of our people. Matter of fact, I have even proposed on many of these programs that I don’t fully endorse because technically they are not permissible under the constitution. But taking care of sick people and the elderly and children I have nothing against that… IF YOU CUT THE SPENDING. - Ron Paul

Those are places where Ron Paul would start. Even though FEMA is one of the worst bureaucracies in terms of waste and inefficiency, its small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, it would not be a top priority. Cutting FEMA or asking about the role of food stamps surly create emotional responses, but in reality these issues are not what is draining us. In a vacuum, those are philosophical questions that would make an interesting debate… but we are living in a time where the stakes couldn’t be higher as we fight to remain solvent, vacuum type thinking is irrelevant. We need solutions to problems and until we start asking the right questions, we will never have those debates; thus we will never fix the real problems.

"Republicans are starting to realize you cant say “oh, lets cut money for food stamps but not the food stamps for the military industrial complex” because its just not going to work. - Ron Paul

So, the next time a reporter wants to tap Dr Paul on the shoulder for a quick story when hurricane or tornado season comes around, he wont be around. He is retiring form congress at 76 years old. He, as I write this, is well behind on Super Tuesday; thus he will not be our next President. They will have to find someone else to do the work for them. Maybe, they could go out and do actual reporting. Cover the minutes from the FED meetings. Maybe go out and find Stephanie Decker, the mother who lost her legs and bring her story to the masses. Or maybe seek out these heroes from Branson Missouri, who risked their lives in order to save others in the face of a deadly tornado or the hundreds of others  if not thousands from this past week who saved lives.

There are plenty of stories waiting to be told, they just need to be reported. If that’s not juicy enough, cover the destruction of our dollar and our nation through crony capitalism, fractional reserve banking and a debt driven economy that results in war and more spending (debt) to finance it. That, however, may not make it past their publisher or editors desk. We can’t have people actually learning how bad off things really are, now can we?

In defense of Obama (allow me to explain)

Let me start out by saying, that feels weird uttering out that title to myself. For those that don’t know me... I’m not a liberal, far from it. For those that do, know I would consider myself a Libertarian and Libertarianism is rooted in logic. Freedom across the board seems to be the "fairest" premise one can have in such an unfair game that is politics. With that said, I see a lot of venom spit at the President in terms of his economic approach that I don’t think is quite fair. Again, before you bitch slap your monitor - allow me to explain.

Much has been made recently about the Presidents accumulation debt. We have seen 5 Trillion added onto the 10 Trillion of national debt since he came into office in January 2009, that's no cheap date. So let there be no doubt that the spending is spiraling out of control going forward.  However, the attempt to put this on one man and his quest to outspend any president in history doesn't make him a Marxist as some would like to believe he is; it makes him a loyal solider. First a very crude and broad history.

A curious thing happened during the early 80's... GDP started to escalate as the country found itself in the midst of an economic growth period unlike anything it has seen in decades. One could point to Nixon ending Bretton Woods in the early 70's as a precursor to this expansion but that is another topic for another day. The reality was the country was booming. However, with that came enormous amounts of debt. So much so that the National debt ballooned from 1 Trillion in 1980 to 4 Trillion by 1988; so this explosion of growth came with a price tag (on a credit card).

Even though the debt was piling up as long as the economy kept building and building like it always has, there would be nothing to worry about. So the federal outlays began to climb and so did the deficits. Bill Clinton had his time to shine as being the only president in four decades to pass a balanced budget, although that was much to do because of the tech boom and the validation and explosion of a new business and platform: the Internet. Then the subsequent NASDAQ crash came in 2000, right when the economy was heading into recession.Ouch.

Then something changed. George Bush Jr was elected and began to rapidly increase spending on new entries to the budget like the Prescription drug plan (entitlements or votes) and Homeland Security (not sure what that still does to this day) while cutting taxes in the midst of a recession. Then we added two wars on two separate fronts and before you knew it we had doubled the debt from roughly 5 to 10 trillion in his eight years and oh yhea, the housing bubble bursts bringing on one of the worst financial calamities since the 30's.  And if that wasn't enough, right before his leaving of office the great recession came and wreaked havoc on our economy on all fronts (except for those at the very top) causing us to pass TARP while most taxpayers getting what amounts to a welfare check of 300-1200 Dollars from the Economic Stimulus Act.

Enter the "O" man. Right out of the gate, Mr Obama pushed through a 780+ Billion dollar stimulus bill which had much of the nation in an uproar based on the preconceived notions upon his entering of office. That stimulus act, like George Bush's before him, had large lump of tax credits worth 250 Billion, so it wasn't all spending parse. President Obama's budgets, although record setting high nominally; were in-line with the last budget of President Bush. The subsequent Obama budgets after his first were (and estimated) to be in the 3.5 to 3.7 Trillion dollar range. President Obama therefore is no bigger of a spender than President Bush if you account for the history seen below.

A large part of the deficit spending has to do with the walloping the middle class took as it affected the receipts. The last three years (2009-2011) receipts were roughly 400 billion lower then they were in all three years before (2006-2008). At the same time the outlays keep increasing. This creates tremendous deficits. But, it wasn’t like Obama came in with a blank check. In fact, Obama's first budget had actually less spending than Bush's last year in office. Obama's final budget is actually only 200 billion more than Bush's final budget (and Bush's biggest to be fair). 

So, if President Obama doubles the national debt, he will just be doing his part to continue the legacy that was put in place before him started in the early 80's by Ronald Regan. This is no disrespect to George Bush nor is this some type of vindication for Mr Obama; its simply setting the record straight. If anything, this points to a bigger problem, regardless of who sits in the oval office and its pretty straight forward. We have too many bills and not enough income. How we bridge this gap, will be the most vital national issue of the next decade. Keynesian economics appears to have reached its saturation point. We either slash spending or we dramatically raise taxes... or invent the internet again.

What we dont know keeps the contracts alive and movin'

We have been here before. Uncovering or peeling back slightly some of this Military Industrial Complex stuff. But here were are again in 2017 and we are increasing the DOD budget yet we outspend everyone else by leaps and bounds. House a nuclear cache that would make Truman wake up with wet/sticky draws. With economic ties to the world's largest country (China) and optimistic plans to mend fences with our only would be military rival: Russia. The same Russia led by the establishment and its grazing sheep's arch nemesis Putin who said in December ‘16:

“I was a bit surprised by the statements from some representatives of the current US administration who for some reason started to prove that the US military was the most powerful in the world,” said Putin. “Nobody is arguing with that.”

Whatever. I've always said even the most hardened and loyal Trump supporters aren't going to agree or like everything he wants to do. This is one for me. Remember Ron Paul? I would assume reallocate and streamline the DOD to fight the modern enemy. Not increasing WW2 esque models that are out of whack with the world over. But if that wasn't enough here comes the bumbling John McCain. Being old and senile is one thing. Still a prick? Check. But when you add total and utter stupidity/arrogance you have this trainwreck that has become the public life of John McCain: He said this week in regards to Trumps plan to raise military spending:

“With a world on fire, America cannot secure peace through strength with just 3 percent more than President Obama’s budget”

This is almost as insane as it is asinine. The would be like a convicted and freed serial arsonist bitching we don't have enough matches, lighters, flamethrowers and firetrucks. Then going on to say if we don't have more fire hydrants and water we will be consumed by said fire. And this guy chairs the Senate Armed Services committee. You're the fire chief dude. If you retire, like I've asked, the world would immediately become covered in coals. 

Not to be outdone, McCain has some cohorts along for the guise. What up Cass;)

Just a quick look at Rep. Mac Thornberry’s financing tell you everything you need to know about why he might be so eager to expand defense spending and turn his nose up at a 50+ billion dollar increase with his buddy Johnny Mac. Let us take a look at Thornberrys top donators, see if we can get a clearer picture:

Top 5 Contributors, 2015 - 2016, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Northrop Grumman	$54,150	$34,150	$20,000
Boeing Co	$37,250	$17,250	$20,000
Leidos Inc	$27,000	$7,000	$20,000
Huntington Ingalls Industries	$25,000	$5,000	$20,000
Lockheed Martin (source:Opensecrets.org)	$25,000	$5,000	$20,000

As you can see, Thorberry’s top contributors is a ‘who's who’ in military contractors . If you dig deeper into his donors it paints a stark picture into what amounts to be a man bought and placed into power by the Military Industrial Complex. Thornberry is not just some random congressman either. Some rando, some 1 of 500+ elected officials who have the most crucial task in controlling the nation's purse. No, Thornberry is the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Let that sink in. Here is a congressman who gets only 2% of his contributions from small donors, almost completely funded by the defense industry sitting as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on record saying a 50+ billion dollar increase from LAST YEAR is not enough.

With that in your mind, pause it and now enter in the fact that he is in legion with John McCain. John McCain at first glance when it comes to finance is clean in terms of his support by the armaments industry. But his ties are much more concealed or you could say, explicitly sinister. 

This is the sitting senator who was rumored (by his own dumb ass twitter photos) to have met with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria across the Turkish border in 2013. Yes, that al-Baghdadi, the ISIS caliphate leader. Then POTUS Obama was said to be “eagerly awaiting word” of McCain's meetings. I bet. 

Why would McCain be in in Syria LAST WEEK just days before the Syrian peace talks begin in Geneva? The same Syria where McCain not only supported the arming and funding of but met with anti-Syrian “rebels” or “moderates” or as I, like many people like to call them… “fucking terrorists”. 

Its probably the same reason why McCain worked with Hillary Clinton and Obama to support regime change both with military might and “rebel” funding in both Libya and Syria. It's also the same reason why he never wanted to leave Iraq and favors putting boots on the ground still to this day. But dont take my words for it, leave it to fellow Senator Rand Paul (I stand with Rand in 2024 for full disclosure) to lambaste McCain in one of the most epic smackdowns I have ever seen and notice the media talking head try and catch Paul in anti-Trump talk after he crushes McShame:

I think Senator McCain's perspective is colored by his disagreements with President Trump on foreign policy. If I were to look at foreign policy, I would say John McCain has been wrong on just about everything over the last four decades. He advocated for the Iraq War, which I think destabilized the Middle East. If you look at the map, there's probably at least six different countries where John McCain has advocated for having U.S. boots on the ground. John McCain's complaint is we're either not at war somewhere, or if we're at war, we leave too soon. So we're not there soon enough, and he wants us to stay forever wherever we send troops.Everything that he says about the president is colored by his own personal dispute he has got running with President Trump. And it should be taken with a grain of salt because John McCain is the guy that has advocated for war everywhere. He would bankrupt the nation.

Now you have to ask yourself what would the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee have in play? Why all this perpetual war? Unlike his counterpart and fellow Trump citric in the house, McCain doesn't appear to have the same owners as Thornberry. Not that a cumulative $1.2 million in defense industry donations to McCain is nothing to sneeze at. And we won't take into consideration McCains and forever boy toy and pal Lindsey Graham's infamous anti-sequestration tour that was partially funded via defense contractor PAC loot. He's a bit more cagey than Thornberry (must be 30+ years in office?) who is unabashed in his servitude to the MIC, that much is obvious. But McCain?

His overlords wear funny hats and no I'm not talking about Catholic priests. They also happen to sponsor the most destructive forces in global terror the world has ever seen. The same country that spawned the 9-11 hijackers. It is also the same country who houses the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) or better known as the opposition in the Syrian Peace talks in Geneva. The same country who holds more oil reserves than anyone else. The same country who executes gays and treats women like a piece of pottery; shiny and bright when new and disposable when chipped or showing any signs of wear. That could be only one place… The Kingdom. 

John McCains allegiance is to American imperialism financed and carried out by neoconservative principles with his biggest supporter on the other side of the globe. The Saudi’s extreme aggression in the form of Sunni Wahhabism sits well with McCain. And McCain has at least 1 million dollar check from his overlords to prove it. 

Interestingly Bloomberg covered Mc’shady’s shady foundation (he says he has nothing to do with) last year a few times. Doubly interestingly they named Chevron and the like but forgot to include ‘Bloomberg Philanthropies’ in its reports. They donated 100+k to the pay for play foundation as well. And here we thought “Fake News” started after the DNC wikileaks expose.

A slightly out of the box solution to our gasoline/energy problem

Imagine a policy where the US drastically cut defense expenditures, increased our dependence on foreign oil, withdrew and stopped entering wars to protect or prop up the petrodollar and pay higher consuming costs not only at the pump and grocery store but everywhere else and in between. Would you believe it? Would you even accept this as remotely possible without destroying our economy? I know it sounds crazy and no, this isn’t a page out of the Obama playbook. This would be the policy going forward if I was sitting at the top of the elitist pyramid. It's not ideal but you have to play the hand that is dealt.

I know there are “greenies” or “tree-huggers” that are reading this and smiling. I hate to disappoint but it’s not a green agenda. No, this is a strategy that would keep America not only at the top of the neocolonial power structure; it would vastly strengthen its grip. How do you suppose this is possible? First and foremost it’s a strategy centered on oil.

We have all experienced the rising gas prices. We have seen the rising prices in commodities. We have felt the gouge in the pocketbook, as trips to the grocery store have become ever increasingly more expensive. The volatile relationship of humans and fuel has taken center stage as the issue of 2012. Emerging economies cannot grow without fuel and established markets crumble if they lose the access.

If it affects everyone, then everyone has an opinion on what to do about our dependency on fossil fuels. Some say, drive the prices sky high so we can jump-start innovation for green tech. While others say “drill baby drill” using our own resources to offset rising costs. Then there are those of us in the middle. While I can see the logic behind the green push and the tapping of our resources, the reality of the situation, unfortunately, is not so pragmatic.

Oil as we know is a global commodity traded around the world. What is traded and receives the most attention is crude oil. Crude oil is by far the most lucrative oil for its producers and the most inexpensive for the consumer. Its diverse applications make in the most valued of all fuels. As far as we go here in the states, it is true; we do have vast reserves of oil, but how much of it is crude oil is a big question mark.

 

The amount of crude oil we have here in the in proven reserves (as you can see above) is nothing like they have in the Middle East. This is why the Middle East remains so vital to the entire world. Just ask Dick, before he became "Vice Dick" back in 1999 while he was CEO at Haliburton.

 “The Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow” - Dick Cheney

 
 However, there are people like Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who say the US has billions of untapped crude reserves, just waiting to be put into production. According to Hamm and his exploration and production company, the Bakken region alone has 20 billion barrels of crude. That would equal the entire US total in proven crude reserves according to the EPA numbers. And that is just in North Dakota and Montana. 

Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, California, Alaska and off shore are all seeing a new oil boom. The amount of oil we have in reserves is rivaled by no other nation in the world. Again, how much of it is crude, is open for debate, there is no denying the vast supply of fuels however.

With crude being the most lucrative and easiest to refine, it will remain the preferred fuel until the time comes when supply of it is vastly outstripped by demand creating equilibrium amongst other types of oil. If you look at the crude oil rich Middle East (who supplies over sixty percent of the world’s oil demands), its crystal clear what kind of clout you receive having the breadbasket of energy in your backyard. 

That region is home to some of the most backwards societies on the planet; yet our President will bow to their king, because he knows how vital they are. Now superimpose that type of power to the US, who already runs the petrodollar scam. So it doesn’t matter really what our reserves are made from. When the supply of crude becomes so depleted you will have all types of oil becoming economically viable. At that point, all oil will be worth not only pursuing but manufacturing and refining as well. 

So, it stands to reason, in a Machiavellian-esque outlook, the US should do all it can to pump the world of its crude, as quickly as possible. This of course will be painful in the short terms but the reality is that the price of oil isn’t going down anymore. The days of cheap gas are gone. 

The US dollar is nothing more then a mirage, its no more valuable then the paper it’s printed on. We are trading paper backed in confidence for tangible assets from other nations that have to invest in our nation just to get oil 66% of the time. Then those nations who take the dollars reinvest them back into this country, yes, that as you know is the short version of the petrodollar recycling process but I think its important to understand the significance of this and the opportunity that lies within it. That’s about as good as a scam as one can devise. If you did it, it would be called counterfeit.

When the Middle East and OPEC lose their stranglehold, the dollar dies. We have accumulated too much debt since OPEC agreed to trade oil for dollars in the early 1970's. The recoil from that action will have a dramatic impact on not only our market but the entire world market.

 

So, I say NO to: “drill baby drill”. 

I say YES, take a hatchet to defense spending and reinvest that money towards balancing the budget or subsidize gas prices for the American consumer (further pushing up consumption).

I say YES to further litigation and regulation, stifling American companies from extracting oil in the US. Bring on Green Peace and bring on the environmentalists.

I say NO to consuming 1.oz of the 695.9 million barrels we have as a nation in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Do whatever it takes to use up the rest of the world’s fuels, trading worthless paper for them in the process. The ends justify the means.